California   I 
Regional 


acility 


•BH 


The  Library 
University  of  California,  Los  Angeles 


The  gift  of  Mrs.  Cummings,  1 963 

yta 

JUF     mmm 


REPRINTED  FROM  THE  JEWISH  QUARTERLY  REVIEW 

NEW  SERIES 
VOLUME  X,  NUMBER  i 


THE 

RESPONSA  OF  THE  BABYLONIAN 

GEONIM   AS  A  SOURCE   OF 

JEWISH    HISTORY,     II 

JACOB   MANN 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE  DROPSIE  COLLEGE  FOR  HEBREW  AND  COGNATE  LEARNING 

1919 


Stack 
Annex 


SOLS" 


THE   RESPONSA   OF   THE   BABYLONIAN 

GEONIM  AS  A  SOURCE  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY* 

BY  JACOB  MANN,  Jews'  College,  London. 

II.    THE  POLITICAL  STATUS  OF  THE  JEWS. 

AFTER  having  discussed  the  extent  of  the  influence  the 
Geonim  had  over  the  Jewries  of  the  various  countries  of 
the  diaspora,  an  attempt  will  be  made  in  this  chapter  to 
describe  the  political  status  of  the  Jews.  In  the  light 
of  the  material  the  Gaonic  responsa  furnish,  we  shall  con- 
sider in  particular  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  the  secular 
authorities  and  to  their  non-Jewish  neighbours,  their  attitude 
towards  the  non-Jewish  courts,  and  finally  their  treatment 
of  their  slaves. 

(a)  It  is  generally  assumed  that  with  the  advent  of  the 
Arabs  to  'Irak  (637-43)  the  Jewish  ecclesiastical  authorities, 
the  so-called  Bet-Din  that  existed  in  most  of  the  Jewish 
communities  of  'Irak,  and  the  members  of  which  were 
appointed  either  by  the  Exilarch  or  by  the  Geonim, 
continued  to  have  full  autonomy  and  could  act  entirely  in 
accordance  with  the  Talmudic  law.  The  Gaonic  responsa, 
however,  show  that  the  Muslim  conquerors  encroached 
occasionally  more  or  less  upon  the  sphere  of  activity 
assigned  to  the  Jewish  courts  or  the  Jewish  communal 
leaders.  The  first  innovation  the  Geonim  had  to  make  not 
long  after  the  Arab  conquest  of  'Irak  was  in  all  probability 
due  to  such  an  interference  on  the  part  of  the  Arab 
rulers.  Sherira  in  his  Letter  (p.  35)  states  that  the  Geonim 

*   See  vols.  VII,  457-90,  VIII,  339-66,  IX,  139-79. 
121 


2094998 


122  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

R.  Raaba  of  Pumbedita  and  Huna  of  Sura  (both  held 
office  after  660  C.E.)  instituted  that  a  woman,  who  defied 
her  husband  and  was  thus  rendered  liable  to  the  charge 
of  being  a  nvrto  (in  the  Talmudic  phrase),  should  be 
divorced  at  once.  The  Talmudic  practice  was  to  defer 
the  divorce  for  twelve  months  in  order  that  meanwhile 
a  reconciliation  might  be  brought  about  between  husband 
and  wife  (see  Ketubot  64  a).  Sherira  himself  explains  in 
a  responsum  that  the  Geonim  were  forced  to  make  this 
innovation  because  they  saw  '  that  the  daughters  of  Israel 
went  and  attached  themselves  to  non-Jews  in  order  to 
obtain  a  divorce  through  them  from  their  husbands.  These 
had  in  some  cases  to  grant  the  divorce  under  compulsion  '.181 
This  statement  probably  means,  as  Weiss  ("T)""n,  IV,  8-9 
and  note  14)  has  pointed  out,  that  the  Muslim  authorities 
could  force  the  Jews  to  grant  divorce  in  such  cases,  and  in 
order  to  prevent  such  enforced  divorces,  which  according 
to  the  Talmudic  law  are  null  and  void  (nB>iy»  B3),  the 
Geonim  ordained  that  in  the  case  of  rmiD  the  husband 
should  at  once  divorce  his  wife  by  his  own  free  will  and 
was  also  bound  to  pay  the  amount  of  the  Ketubah.  The 
objections  of  Rabbinowitz  (Graetz,  Heb.  ed.,  Ill,  131) 
against  this  assumption  cannot  hold  good.  The  same 
phrase  DMja  lovy  nbru  occurs  also  in  another  responsum  of 
Sherira  where  it  must  also  mean  the  protection  afforded 
by  a  Muslim  court  or  by  some  influential  Arabs  to  a  Jew 


181  yn,  NO.  140  =  ITS?,  56  a,  NO.  15:  rvo^n 

ptw  pania  en  jn^jno  DJixa  PD»J  pro  ino»b  trab 

see  also  p*3,  No.  91,  by  Sherira.     In  3"n,  No.  89,  the  reason  is  : 

njn  nohnk   hfV*  nm   rON^n  which  amounts  to  the  same.     Cp.  also 

Schechter's  Saadyana,  147  (  =JQR.,  XIV,  515),  11.  i  ff.  0^31  \3&  ^3  .  .  . 


RESPONSA    OF   THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN       123 

against  the  ruling  of  the  Bet-Din.  The  case  (nX  No.  182, 
see  Einleit.,  21  note)  deals  with  a  Jew  that  committed 
some  transgression  on  the  Sabbath  for  which  he  was 
to  be  flogged,  and  the  fear  is  expressed  that  he  might 
escape  and  try  to  obtain  the  protection  of  the  non-Jewish 
court  or  of  some  influential  Arab  ('M  T1  lovy  r6n''1,  see 
also  0*103,  No.  146,  and  a'n,  No.  135).  This  decree  about 
a  '  defiant  '  wife  (n"nio)  which  was  promulgated  soon  after 
the  conquest  of  Babylon  by  'Omar  probably  applied  to  this 
country  only.  We  have  the  evidence  of  Maimonides  that 
it  was  not  accepted  by  the  majority  of  the  Jews.182 

A  question  that  very  frequently  occupied  the  Jewish 
communities  as  a  whole  was  the  assessment  of  taxation. 
Generally  the  whole  community  of  a  district  was  made 
responsible  for  the  entire  amount  of  taxes  that  was  imposed 
upon  it.  After  the  conquest  of  'Irak  and  Syria  by  the 
Arabs  under  'Omar,  the  Arab  conqueror  in  organizing 

*  =     G 

the  new  state  fixed  a  poll-tax  for  all  non-Muslims  (A^-*-), 
certain  burdens  in  connexion  with  the  quartering  of 
Muhammedan  soldiers,183  and  a  graduated  land  tax  (A^>, 
see  Aug.  Mu'ller,  ibid.,  I,  272).  This  organization  of  the 
state  by  'Omar  was  probably  adopted  by  the  Arabs  after 
their  conquest  of  North  Africa  and  Spain.  As  regards 
Babylon,  Graetz  assumes  that  the  Exilarchs  were  respon- 
sible for  the  taxes  which  were  collected  from  the  Jews 
(V4,  131  and  435-6).  But  from  the  responsa  it  appears 
that  the  Arab  authorities  collected  the  taxes  directly  from 


181  npinn  T,  JWK  'n,  4";    fcw  im  o^ruon  Drns 
niEipon  ann  orrby  D^in  n^ra  D'a-n. 

IBS  Probably  R.  Natronai  refers  to  this  in  a  responsum  in  TKTl,  Hf  20, 
i.  12:  H33Dn  *3BO  3  rQl  n2'."2  ^3NO  1^  N'Sir6  iniDI,  based  on 
Besah,  21  a.  See  also  Aug.  Mailer,  ibid.,  274. 


124  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

the  Jews.  The  Gaon  R.  Sheshna  of  Sura  (before  1000 
Sel.  =  689  C.E.)  writes  in  a  responsum  that  '  if  the  ruler  or 
the  tax-collector  sends  to  the  community  and  enjoins  the 
pronouncing  of  a  ban  in  his  interest,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  disobey  on  account  of  the  compulsion,  this  tax  that  was 
imposed  by  means  of  the  ban  is  not  binding.  But  if  they 
impose  an  oath,  the  community  should  refuse  to  administer 
the  oath  to  the  person  concerned  '.184  This  responsum 
shows  that  the  authorities  availed  themselves  of  the  coer- 
cion practised  by  the  Bet-Din  for  their  own  purpose,  and 
thus  in  order  to  obtain  a  true  estimate  of  a  man's  taxing- 
power,  they  ordered  the  Jewish  courts  or  the  communal 
leaders  to  announce  a  ban  against  or  impose  an  oath  upon 
a  Jew  for  this  purpose.  The  Gaon  to  whom  this  responsum 
is  assigned  was  one  of  the  earliest  Geonim  whose  sphere 
of  influence  probably  did  not  extend  beyond  Babylon  and 
Persia,  and  we  may  therefore  assume  that  the  responsum 
refers  to  the  conditions  that  existed  in  these  countries 
alone.  The  Gaon's  opinion  is  that  the  enforced  oath 
should  not  be  administered  by  the  communal  leaders  and 
that  the  ban,  though  announced,  would  be  rendered  null 
and  void,  in  order  to  counteract  the  extortions  of  the 
authorities.  The  tax-collectors  mentioned  in  this  respon- 
sum were  certainly  non-Jews.  Had  they  been  Jews 
appointed  by  the  Exilarch,  or  by  the  communal  leaders, 

IM  w  vxsrn  WBT  ^nea  nnnn^  bnpn  PWDB>  ono  to 
PNI  Dib  u'N  onnntr  oa»  inw  NDJIN  DWD  onnnb  tth? 
b  yyyrh  TIDK  oao  bya  IN  pote  IN  ita  jrapBp  njnap  bix  h  vnrk 

(T\'V,  No.  195;  D'n,  No.  121 ;  VET),  I,  49,  No.  13;  V3,  No.  26,  and 
D'a,  No.  26).  Cp.  also  1*3,  No.  40.  This  R.  Sheshna  was  certainly  the 
Gaon  and  not  the  father  of  the  Gaon  'Amram  (856-74)  of  whose  official 
capacity  as  a  scholar  to  whom  questions  were  addressed  nothing  is  known 
(see  also  Weiss,  T")Tl ,  9,  note  15). 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM — MANN       125 

to  collect  the  taxes,  the  Gaon  would  not  have  decided 
against  them.1*5  The  whole  tone  of  the  responsum  shows 
that  the  authorities  were  extortionate  in  their  coercion  of 
the  Jewish  community.  In  the  same  responsum  is  also 
mentioned  the  case  of  a  Jew  that  was  executed,  and  his 
property  confiscated.  Thereupon  the  authorities  enjoined 
the  Jewish  communal  leaders  to  announce  a  ban  against  any- 
body that  concealed  some  money  of  the  criminal  in  order 
to  preserve  it  for  his  heirs,  instead  of  handing  it  over  to 
the  authorities.  In  the  time  of  R.  Nahshon  of  Sura 
(874-82)  we  learn  that  the  taxes  and  impositions  weighed 
heavily  upon  the  Jews  in  Babylon.  On  a  question,  that 
came  probably  from  some  community  abroad,  whether  the 
scholars  should  be  asked  by  the  community  to  contribute 
their  share  to  the  amount  of  the  taxes  due  to  the  govern- 
ment, the  Gaon  answers  that  '  though  the  king  and  his 
councillors  impose  taxes  without  a  limit  and  make  the 
burden  still  heavier  upon  the  community ',  yet  the  scholars 
should  not  be  taxed.186  Probably  the  Gaon  reflects  here 
the  deplorable  state  the  Jews  of  Babylon  must  have  been 
in,  especially  during  the  period  of  the  decline  of  the 
'Abbasid  dynasty  after  the  death  of  Mutassim  in  842 
(see  Aug.  Mllller,  ibid.,  I,  523  ff.). 

In  the  communities  outside  Babylon,  in  Palestine,  North 
Africa,  Spain,  and  southern  France,  we  learn  from  the 
responsa  that  fixed  amounts  were  imposed  upon  whole 
communities,  and  the  communal  leaders  had  the  task  and 

185  Cp.  ?D"1£3,  No.  10  :  when  the  community  collected  the  taxes  and  one 
of  the  members  declared  that  he  possessed  nothing,  he  was  adjured. 

18«  m,  NO.  537:  nwDi  men  -jtan  favour  B"yx&>  wnn  *an  . . . 
D'33-in   jo   npb   IIDN  imn  ^y  Sy   PTMDI   pprnci   pn   ^a 

.   .   .   01^3- — About   the   great   number   of   taxes   that   existed    under   the 
Abbasid  caliphs,  cp.  Kremer,  I.e.,  I,  278,  and  II,  488  ff. 


126  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

the  responsibility  to  assess  each  member  of  their  community 
in  accordance  with  his  economic  position.  Thus  the  people 
of  Tlemsen  style  their  late  communal  leader  '  the  eye  of 
the  community  and.  the  first  in  every  charitable  affair  as 
well  as  in  the  taxes  and  the  impositions  exacted  from  the 
community'.187  Often  disputes  arose  in  the  communities 
as  to  who  should  contribute  the  most,  whether  the  traders 
or  the  people  who  owned  landed  property,  as  we  learn 
from  responsa  of  French  scholars,  contemporaries  of  Sherira 
and  Hai  (see  o^oa,  Nos.  165  and  205).  In  D*l»a,  No.  165, 
it  is  also  stated  that  the  community  had  to  collect  an 
amount  of  money  for  bribing  the  officials  not  to  expose 
them  to  extortion  and  oppression.188  That  the  extortions 
of  the  authorities  in  the  district  of  Kairowan  became 
intolerable  in  the  time  of  Sherira  and  Hai  we  can  gather 
from  a  responsum  of  theirs  preserved  in  n"j,  No.  346  (cp. 
Geon.,  II,  5).  A  Jew  was  much  harassed  in  his  place  of 
residence  by  penal  impositions,  and  he  could  not  leave  the 
town  as  his  wife  would  be  arrested  instead  and  treated  in 
a  similar  way.  Accordingly  people  advised  that  Jew  to 
write  a  bogus  document  of  divorce  to  his  wife,  in  order 
that  she  should  be  able  to  take  possession  of  her  husband's 
property  as  being  her  dowry,  and  her  husband  be  at  liberty 
to  escape.189  It  is  expressly  stated  that  some  of  the  towns- 


|»^n)  n,  31,  No.  9  =  n"3,  No.  37,  by  R.  Hai: 

i»  najjn  noani  twijn  pa  npnvn  pi  nm  5>ab  JIK'X-II  myn  py  — 

,  'fine',  was  then  the  usual  expression  for  tax.     See  O"1O3,   No.  10  : 

y  ^waynp  nta  s»y  ps  I»N  ibrb  D»  WISD 

188  Drr&po  Diisn  pbpb  PTHBW  mn&wi3  rmntj>r6  pi. 


vryo  sn11  rvriBoi  pobrn  B'Jiyo  nann  nyoyo  rrn 


&y\yn  n»n?^  .nnis  pnyxoi 
nnainsn  ^  ww  ^ypnpo  b  n^iDnN^  inB>*6 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN       127 

people  used  to  avail  themselves  of  such  devices  in  order 
to  escape  the  impositions  of  the  governor.  That  such 
devices  had  to  be  used  is  sufficiently  eloquent  of  the 
position  of  the  Jews  in  those  districts.  The  screw  of 
taxation  was  made  more  and  more  tight,  so  that  people 
were  compelled  to  leave  their  places  of  residence.  A  similar 
case  is  reported  in  another  responsum  (Yt?n,  II,  58,  No.  7). 
Jews  who  had  to  flee  from  their  town,  settled  in  another 
place  where  they  were  taxed  by  the  Jewish  community. 
But  now  the  members  of  their  former  community  bring 
forward  claims  against  them,  because  they  had  undertaken 
in  common  the  responsibility  for  the  taxes.  In  the  respon- 
sum it  is  stated  that  the  authorities  would  exact  the  amount 
assessed  irrespective  of  the  actual  number  of  the  members 
of  the  community.190  In  Palestine  also,  under  the  rule 
of  the  Egyptian  dynasty  of  the  Fatimids,  the  burden  of 
taxation  weighed  heavily  upon  the  Jews.  In  a  letter 
to  Ephraim  b.  Shemarya,  head  of  the  Palestinian  syna- 
gogue of  Fustat,  the  Jewish  community  of  Jerusalem 
complain  that  they  '  suffer  the  yoke  of  the  non-Jews  who 
put  all  burdens  '  upon  them.  Though  there  was  a  famine 


p  p&>w  "vyn  nniN  ^SEI  E»I  .  vnnn  nsrsn:  intM*  snn  x      na 

,  .  .  P^ETI  K'3iy»  fDSy  JIN  manb  .  This  responsum  belongs  to  the 
group  of  responsa  sent  to  Kairowan  in  991  c.  E.  (H"3  ,  Nos.  345-50,  see 
p.  179,  note  i).  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  authorities  did  not 
confiscate  this  man's  estate  on  his  departure  from  the  town.  Further, 
the  document  of  divorce,  Q3,  seems  to  have  had  legal  recognition  in  the 
eyes  of  the  authorities,  and  the  wife  was  allowed  to  take  possession  of  her 
former  husband's  estate  in  lieu  of  her  dowry  (rQlri3),  in  precedence  to 
the  claims  of  the  authorities. 

iso  ^tf-\y<  ibbn  by  biy  p-puae  jnypE  ima:?  p'oi  on  D*D3«  D^wnp 

ibtt  DO  ^BISl  nnUB>.  This  responsum  is  seemingly  by  R.  Hai  like  the 
one  preceding  it.  Miiller,  Einleit.,  34,  note  (last  line)  assigns  it  without  any 
proof  to  R.  Isaac  the  Tosafite. 


128  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

in  the  country,  the  Jewish  community  had  to  find  the 
usual  amount  of  taxes  imposed  by  the  government,  and 
had  thus  to  appeal  to  their  compatriots  in  Egypt  for 
support.191 

Several  responsa  deal  with  confiscation  of  money  and 
property  belonging  to  Jews,  and  with  other  kinds  of  inter- 
ference on  the  part  of  the  authorities.  In  some  cases  it 
may  have  been  due  to  the  punishment  inflicted  upon 
individual  Jews  that  transgressed  the  law  of  the  country 
(see  X*B>,  34  b,  No.  5  and  41  b,  No.  38  by  Saadya ;  TJ, 
No.  3;  D*J,  Nos.  9  and  109;  ro'iioa,  No.  189).  Some  in- 
teresting points  are  contained  in  a  list  of  headings  of 
responsa  quoted  by  Miiller  (Einleit.,  53,  note)  from  a  Parma 
MS.  Non-Jews  give  evidence  against  Jewish  young  people 
about  their  indecent  behaviour,  and  the  governor  appoints 
a  Jewish  official  to  collect  the  fines  he  imposed  upon  these 
young  Jews,  while  granting  this  official  a  commission  of 
ten  per  cent.  Informing  amongst  Jews  was  an  evil  rampant 
in  those  times  which  often  endangered  the  lives  of  many 
Jews  while  causing  still  further  material  loss.  Accordingly 
the  Bet-Din  and  the  communal  leaders  dealt  very  severely 
with  informers.  Anybody  that  suffered  from  denunciation 
could  pronounce  a  ban  against  those  that  denounced  him 
to  the  authorities  (see  n'j,  No.  333,  end,  by  R.  Hai;  o'lDJ, 

191  Geniza   Letter  (published  by  Cowley,  JQR.,  XIX,  pp.  107-8,  and 
also  by  Wertheimer,    D^BTP  MJJ,   II,   17):    D^t^lM   D'JJTin   H3   THN 

man  biy  o^aio  uru«  ne>N  naisan  rawyn  na-6yn  nan  enipn 
o^jinn  vn  nxrn  rwa  »a  irvp*  "po  iros  xh  . . .  mio 
rus?  ba  wby  -KPN  twiyn  HU  12  nvi  vb  inreup  nB>xi  naooa 
baa  D^pn?  13N  n^K  n^jyn  ui?  n  N^  -INK':^  no  rvrkb 
jn«  (r.  ^32)  ^>3  nan  NjfOJ  N^>  aynn  naca  mw  ua»n  nt^N  ny 
«  .  ,  Don  jo  onmo  ww  D>ann 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM — MANN       129 

No.  193,  by  R.  Joseph  Ibn  Abitur,  and  No.  195,  end).192 
One  of  'Omar's   decrees  was  that  a  non-Muslim  should 


192  No  indication  is  to  be  found  in  the  Gaonic  Responsa,  as  far  as  they 
are  extant,  that  informers  were  sentenced  to  death  by  the  Bet-Din  in 
conjunction  with  the  communal  leaders.  The  responsa  of  the  contemporary 
Spanish  scholars  also  show  no  trace  of  this  penal  procedure.  It  is  therefore 
surprising  to  find  this  drastic  treatment  of  informers  quite  general  among 
the  Jewish  communities  chiefly  in  Spain.  The  first  authority  mentioned 
as  having  inflicted  capital  punishment  on  an  informer,  is  R.  Joseph  Ibn 
Migash  of  Lucena,  the  disciple  of  Alfasi  (see  R.  Juda  b.  Asher  in 

miiT  f.  55  =  ruo^ta  "inN  -NDC^  SWD  p  •nbn  -"'i  ^pot? 

n^Jtt  ni'KQ  Dim  nrr6  bni?  a"0nr2).  Maimonides,  writing  in  Egypt, 
also  refers  to  this  punishment  as  quite  usual  in  the  'towns  of  the  West' 
(21J?Dn  "HJD),  i.  e.  Spain  and  Morocco,  which  latter  country  contained  then 
many  Spanish  Jews  (Tlptnn  T,  p'TDl  ^TIP!  Tl,  VIII,  i).  Highly  important  is 
the  letter  of  Solomon  b.  Aderet  concerning  the  case  of  an  informer  in 
Barcelona  (published  by  Kaufmann,  JQR.,  VIII,  1896,  pp.  228  ff.,  where 
he  also  discusses  this  question  of  Jewish  informers  in  the  Middle  Ages  on 
pp.  217-28).  See  further  the  important  responsum  of  Asheri  in  nV'6? 
5?"Nin,  XVII,  i.  On  the  whole,  the  material  available  tends  to  show 
that  chiefly  in  Spain  informers  paid  the  penalty  of  death  for  their  denuncia- 
tions. There  the  communities  seem  to  have  had  the  permission  of  the 
secular  authorities  for  such  a  procedure.  Altogether  in  Spain  the  communal 
leaders  seem  to  have  been  invested  with  very  great  powers,  amounting 
even  to  the  right  of  inflicting  capital  punishment  in  some  cases  ;  a  fact  that 
greatly  astonished  Asheri  when  he  came  from  Germany  to  settle  in  Toledo, 
as  he  writes  in  the  important  responsum  in  JJ>"Nin  f\Y'&,  XVII,  8. 
Whether  in  the  Gaonic  period  the  Jewish  communities  anywhere  in  the 
diaspora,  including  even  Spain,  possessed  such  rights,  is  very  doubtful. 
It  is  certainly  surprising  that  in  the  numerous  Gaonic  responsa  no  mention 
is  made  of  such  formidable  authority  vested  with  the  communal  leaders. 
See  further  D"in»  '1E71,  ed.  Bloch,  p.  208,  No.  137  :  H"1 

$>3«  PITDO  rwa  si>t?  xpm  ^"j  on»3  crnx  pun  ps  nmooi 
JW3  N^>  p 


ins*  IDINB'  ^  ^i  wr    *«n  ns 

'in  niO  p  npy  ^n  n-O.  This  responsum  deals 
with  conditions  in  Germany,  where  it  seems  informers  were  removed  with 
the  assistance  of  non-Jews  ;cp.  further,  ibid.,  p.  50,  Nos.  313  and  317). 
In  view  of  the  above  remarks,  the  responsum  in  O"j,  182, 

VOL.  X.  K 


130  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

suffer  capital  punishment  in  the  case  of  his  having  spoken 
disparagingly  of  Muhammed  and  his  religion  (see  Aug. 
Miiller,  ibid.,  I,  273).  A  member  of  the  Exilarch's  family, 
who  was  to  succeed  the  well-known  David  b.  Zakkai,  was 
denounced  in  Nisibis  for  such  an  offence  and  suffered  the 
penalty.193  From  a  responsum  we  learn  further  that  if 
a  Jew  was  converted  to  Islam  and  then  repented  and 
returned  to  his  former  religion,  he  had  to  flee  to  another 
place  where  he  would  be  unknown,  else  he  forfeited  his 
life.19* 

On  the  whole  it  may  be  assumed  that  a  Jew  found 
some  protection  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  and  Courts 
against  robbery  and  oppression  by  non-Jews.  This  was 
more  or  less  the  case  both  in  Muhammedan  and  Christian 
•countries.  The  responsa  supply  proofs  for  this  assumption. 
Thus  we  read  in  a  responsum  of  R.  Semah  (probably  of 
Pumbedita,  872-90)  about  a  Jew  that  traded  in  Egyptian 
towns,  and  while  attempting  to  ford  a  river  was  drowned. 
When  the  relatives  searched  for  the  body,  the  non-Jews 
living  by  the  side  of  the  river  gave  evidence  that  they  had 
seen  the  body  floating  but  they  did  not  pick  it  up  for  fear 


-nn  x  min  o^oye  Q^prn  13  nnni  too.-nan 
^N  .  .  .  iniD  ino  \r\rb  UH'3  Bn  i?np^  nyuvoi  10101  nyo  tbx 
.  .  .  feup  TO  ^3  u  imnb  "ini»n  phn  W»K  inann  by  naipn  ivh 
inr6  inio  pi>  nwr  vby  nD^»B>  v  p«  vunn  m  ^y  ^3N,  is  very 

likely  not  by  a  Babylonian  Gaon  but  by  a  Spanish  scholar. 

193  Report  of  Nathan  the  Babylonian  (Neub.,  II,  82-3)  :  JJ11K3  KSD3  N^l 


oy  UDipn:^  ">3T  ^  JH-NB^  ny  inwob  ip'aon  « 
Bn  ns  bbpB'  vby  n»ym  piw. 

<x«yt  26  b>  No.  a8,  by  R.  Moses  of  Sura,  832-43  c.  E.  :    p«1 

inn  DNK>  pjnv  ^n^  WIN  p^oe'  tN&b  nirn^  imx 
pmn. 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN       131 

of  the  governor.195  Probably  they  were  afraid  lest  the 
authorities  would  accuse  them  of  having  murdered  this 
Jew.  As  regards  a  Christian  country,  we  see  that  R. 
Meshullam  in  »*1C3,  No.  188,  decided  in  a  case  where 
non-Jews  forcibly  deprived  Jews  of  their  estates,  fields,  and 
vineyards,  and  afterwards  other  Jews  took  over  from  these 
robbers  their  spoil,  that  since  there  were  non-Jewish  courts 
and  authorities  with  whom  the  plundered  Jews  could  have 
lodged  their  complaints,  they  had  relinquished  their  right 
of  ownership  by  not  taking  legal  proceedings  and  allowing 
other  Jews  to  recover  their  property  from  the  robbers.196 
But  frequently  in  disturbed  times  the  authorities  were 
powerless  or  callous  about  giving  protection  to  Jews  against 
thefts  and  robberies.  Two  responsa  supply  us  with  highly 
interesting  material.  Correspondents  from  probably  some 
North  African  community  write  to  Sherira  (¥fft2>,  32  a, 
No.  20)  concerning  the  case  of  a  Jew  that  lost  something 
or  other,  or  was  robbed  by  non-Jews,  and  afterwards 
another  Jew  bought  back  the  stolen  goods  from  these 
non-Jews,  of  course  much  below  their  value.  Now  the 
owner  claims  back  his  goods  and  intends  paying  back 
the  other  man's  outlay.  In  the  long  argument  which  the 
owner  of  the  stolen  or  plundered  goods  uses,  three  charac- 
teristic alternatives  are  enumerated  as  to  how  a  Jew  of 
those  times  could  make  good  his  loss.  Either  he  finds  out 
the  culprits  and  brings  them  before  the  governor  or  the 
non-Jewish  courts.  Or  he  strikes  a  bargain  with  the 


rn,  NO.  27  :  DJIMD  nnip^  iron  p  in^yr6  PKTJIO  w«n 


.  .  .  fn»  Wrm   n»3J  >tK  *fl*;     Cp.  also  the  responsum  of  Elhanan 
b.  Hushiel  (above,  IX,  171  if.). 

K  2 


132  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

brigands  to  return  him  at  least  a  part  of  his  belongings. 
It  is  stated  in  the  responsum  that  other  Jews  had  to  do 
likewise.  The  third  alternative  would  be  to  parley  with 
the  elders  and  influential  people  amongst  these  brigands 
and  persuade  them  by  bribes  to  recover  the  stolen  goods. 
Though  there  were  prohibitions  by  the  governors  against 
stealing  and  robbing  as  well  as  against  buying  such 
goods,  it  seems  that  this  '  trade  '  flourished  considerably. 
The  Jewish  communities,  long  before  the  time  of  this 
responsum,  had  to  make  an  institution  that  the  owner 
of  the  lost,  stolen,  or  robbed  property  should  be  entitled 
to  recover  it  from  the  Jewish  buyer  after  paying  back 
his  expenses.  This  institution  was  common  to  all  com- 
munities in  that  district,  which  shows  that  robberies  and 
thefts  must  have  been  of  very  frequent  occurrence.197 
From  the  answer  of  the  Gaon  we  gather  that  this 
institution  was  unknown  in  Babylon.  Accordingly  the 
responsum  refers  to  the  conditions  outside  'Irak,  pro- 
bably in  some  North  African  district.  In  the  other 
responsum  in  p"3,  No.  93  (perhaps  by  R.  Meshullam,  see 
Miiller,  Einleit.y  25,  note)  we  find  Jewish  business-men 


197  D^i3  rv6npn  an  &6 

irnipna  proo  D-a^m  pDD^rw?  ^aua  Qjruo  ns  r\\yth 
na  p  wax  una  m  ^983)  .nuno3  pa  D'ama  pa  DVI  or  5>aa 
niano  ^  pxai  orr-nn  poo  ibo»i  onn«  wa^  DJIOB  nas^  N^C' 
n^pn  H^L—  See  also  D"3,  NO.  4a:  n-nnon  70  i^srm  o»a  nvacB'  na»BD 
nninoi  HIKK'D  nna  vm  oo^iro  POD^  n^y  iNatr  m*1^  IN  ma  s^nn 
DiTam  onnK  ^Nitr^  nninon  fmxb  o»«n  jniN  onaoi 
v:«ay  np-i  jnaa'  onnn  npi^  D»^yan  nn^  pnn  JD  B«  DT3 

?  K?  ^N.  This  responsum  which  is  assigned  in  Pardes,  end,  to  Rashi 
(cp.  MQller,  Einleit.,  n,  notex  is  quoted  in  S"!"2ti>,  II,  §  148,  fol.  1673 
[Cat.  Montefiore  Library,  33,  No.  ia8]  as  p«3  «NH  W3")  nmC'H.  For  the 
last  reference  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  Biichler. 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN        133 

taking  the  law  into  their  own  hands  and  paying  back  in 
the  same  coin  to  non-Jewish  traders  who  constantly  spolia- 
ted and  harrassed  them.  '  A  Jew  said  to  a  co-religionist, 
The  people  of  the  town  N.  have  captured  our  city  and 
have  robbed  us.  Now  the  traders  of  that  city  usually  go 
to  the  town,  wherein  you  reside,  for  business  purposes. 
If  you  can  spoliate  them  by  the  authority  of  the  rulers  of 
your  town,  do  it  and  let  me  have  the  spoil.  But  the  other 
Jew  answered,  Were  I  able  to  make  these  traders  pay  the 
penalty,  I  should  do  it  myself,  because  I  have  also  lost 
a  great  deal  in  their  town.  At  length  it  happened  that 
once  these  traders  came  with  their  goods  to  the  town  of 
the  second  Jew,  and  he,  risking  his  life,  fleeced  them  after 
bribing  the  authorities  of  his  town.'  198  The  Jew  seeing 
that  no  redress  was  to  be  obtained  from  the  authorities, 
especially  when  towns  were  on  the  warpath  against  each 
other,  had  to  risk  his  life  and  procure  retribution  for 
himself. 

Several  responsa  tell  us  of  towns  sacked  wherein  Jews 
lived  and  also  of  cases  of  exile,  either  of  whole  communities 
or  of  individual  Jews.  Unfortunately  only  a  few  of  these 
responsa  can  be  adequately  identified.  R.  Meshullam  must 
refer  to  some  upheaval  in  Lucca  and  the  surrounding 
places  when  he  writes  at  the  beginning  of  his  responsum 
(P"3,  No.  61),  'May  God  in  his  great  mercy  relieve  us  in 
distress  and  put  an  end  to  the  upheavals  among  us,  our 


ff\  irry  nx  i&'aa  >:2  Ty  ^K  rvir    IDN^   NTJ»  -njn 
6  ^m  ox  ."p'y^  '"niriD^  pabin  *vyn  nnis  ^  pjnm 
ON  tane*  mix  -6  IONI  .  ^  jm  DTO  biu  Try  np  n:a 
ty  '•moan  -UN   DJB>  '•Etfyi'  DJYIN 
WBJ  mrr  iniN  Db>  n^ncn  nnix 
.  .  .  peon  mn^^  n«wn  nprna. 


134  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

brethren  and  the  children  of  our  congregations.199  Above 
(VII,  484)  we  had  the  case  of  the  town  of  Nefusa  that  was 
sacked  and  burned  by  the  enemy.  Another  responsum 
tells  us  of  an  Arabic  commander  of  an  army  who  entered 
a  town  and  captured  many  women,  Jewish  and  non- 
Jewish.  These  captives  had  afterwards  to  be  ransomed 
(o'ltM,  No.  47,  see  Muller,  note  i).200  Another  responsum 
(P*a,  No.  51,  probably  by  R.  Meshullam,  see  Einlcit.,  25, 
note)  tells  us  further  of  a  town  that  was  sacked  and  all 
the  inhabitants  were  led  away  as  captives,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  one  Jew  who  escaped.  From  the  responsum  it 
appears  that  this  Jewish  community  was  not  long  after 
reorganized.  In  »"i»3,  No.  153  (probably  by  some  French 
or  Italian  scholar,  see  Mliller,  note  i)  we  read  of  the  exile 
of  Jews  from  a  whole  district.  Before  the  exile  a  Bet-Din 
existed  there,  and  thus  there  must  have  been  an  organized 
Jewish  community  in  that  town.  The  estates  of  the  exiled 
Jews  were  not  confiscated,  and  from  the  lawsuit  it  appears 
that  the  children  of  these  exiles  returned  to  their  former 
place  of  residence  and  could  take  possession  of  these  estates. 
Perhaps  this  responsum  refers  to  the  banishment  of  the 
Jews  of  Limoges  in  1010  c.  E.  (see  Gr.  V4,  380),  where  the 
bishop  of  the  town  had  Christianity  preached  to  the  Jews 
for  a  whole  month,  and  when  this  was  of  no  avail,  had 
them  exiled.  We  learn  further  of  Jews  of  Tlemsen  that 
were  exiled  to  Ashir  but  their  property  was  not  confiscated 

199  i3TiN»i  «DD  rnwwin  niw  ixa  ub  aw  D»ain  wsma  Kim 

M»bnp    ya».     See  above,  VII,  487. 

200  Asheri,   Responsa,  XXXII,   5,   quotes   this   responsum   as   follows  : 

ipa  'oa  NPDTWD  ^n  ^Niotr  Vn  T  ana  ynr  nix  'oa  »nt«D 
nacn  n»yb  sa  poan  ipb  ,pwn  i>"n  ^D  an  'aitwi  n^ru  »aa  *?y 


'Wl  'n>3^a  lUrO  'HinM  nrWO  na~»n  0^3.  Accordingly  only  one  Jewess 
was  among  the  captives.  The  same  reading  is  often  found  in  the  Responsa 
of  R.  Moses  Alashkar,  no.  95  (ed.  Sabionctta,  1553,  fol.  151  b). 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM — MANN       135 

and  their  heirs  could  become  the  owners  of  their  parents' 
possessions  (n"3,  No.  33  and  »"IDJ,  No.  133,  by  R.  Hai, 
see  also  above,  VII,  484). 

(b]  The  next  point  to  be  considered  is  the  relations 
that  existed  between  Jews  and  their  Gentile  neighbours. 
It  is  only  natural  to  assume  that  Jews  had  many  business 
connexions  with  Gentiles.  This  is  corroborated  by  many 
responsa,  as  it  will  be  shown  in  the  next  chapter.  Thus 
in  many  cases  friendly  relations  must  have  sprung  up 
between  Jews  and  non-Jews.  R.  Nahshon,  in  a  responsum, 
is  of  the  opinion  that  no  charity  should  be  accepted  from 
a  non-Jew  (l"j,  No.  26).  This  responsum  shows  that  there 
must  have  been  sometimes  non-Jews  that  wanted  to  con- 
tribute to  the  charitable  needs  of  Jewish  communities. 
Some  interesting  details  about  the  relations  between  Jews 
and  Christians  in  Babylon  are  to  be  found  in  the  Judicial 
Decisions  of  the  Catholici  (published  by  Sachau,  Syrische 
Rechtsbticher,  vol.  II).  The  people  of  Hira  (Hertha)  used 
to  practise  circumcision  according  to  Jewish  rites  (/.  c., 
Jesubarnum,  §  27,  cp.  Timotheos,  §  16).  The  Catholicos 
Jesubarnum  (§  118)  prohibits  both  priest  and  layman  to 
'eat  and  drink  with  Jews  and  to  keep  friendship  with  the 
son  of  the  crucifiers'  (I.e.,  p.  170,  11.  13-14: 

x-v.  ]k.*.o  ^o/  :  UaoXx  o(  .j 
U»cu.).  The  same  Catholicos  ordains  ex- 
communication from  the  Church  on  those  that  marry 
'  a  heathen,  Jew,  or  a  member  of  another  religion '  (§§  10, 
ii,  119).  These  decisions  of  the  Catholici  allow  us  a  glimpse 
of  the  relations,  which  appear  to  have  been  of  a  friendly 
character,  between  Jews  and  Christians  in  Babylon  in  the 
first  half  of  the  ninth  century  (see  also  Aptowitzer,  Die 
syrischcn  Rechtsbilcher  11.  das  MosaiscJie  Recht,  pp.  5-6,  in 


136  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

Sitzungsberichte  der  Wiener  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften, 
vol.  163).  But  on  the  whole  the  Jew's  life  among  his 
non-Jewish  neighbours  must  have  been  precarious  and 
exposed  to  dangers.  We  find  the  Geonim  adopting  the 
maxim,  as  found  in  the  Talmud,  that  'a  non-Jew  generally 
is  an  extortioner'  (Kin  ND3N  'H  DHD  ,0*183,  No.  101,  by 
R.  'Amram;  n"3,  No.  242,  by  Sherira  or  Hai  to  the  Kairowan 
Jews).  Characteristic  is  the  statement  by  R.  Natronai  of 
Sura,  853-6  C.E.,  in  a  responsum,  to  the  effect  that  'generally 
if  non-Jews  get  hold  of  a  Jew's  money  they  have  no 
pity  '.201  It  must  have  been  sad  experience  only  that  made 
the  spiritual  leaders  of  Jewry  view  the  non-Jew  in  such 
a  light.  Thus  it  is  only  natural  that  the  Jews  disliked 
having  non-Jews  as  their  nearest  neighbours,  for  fear  of 
violence.  Jews  preferred  to  live  by  themselves  in  special 
quarters.  This  tendency  helped  to  erect  the  Ghetti  which 
later  on,  in  the  times  of  persecutions,  were  made  obligatory 
on  the  Jews.  The  Talmudic  law  was  that  if  a  Jew  sold 
his  field  or  house  to  a  non-Jew,  his  Jewish  neighbours 
could  force  this  Jew  to  undertake  the  responsibility  for  any 
harm  their  new  non-Jewish  neighbour  might  do  them. 
This  law  we  find  in  full  practice  in  the  Gaonic  period  as 
several  responsa  show  (cp.  ?"&,  33  a,  Nos.  21  and  22  (cp. 
OW3,  No.  142),  probably  by  Sherira;  »"lEJ,  No.  19,  by 
R.  Semah  to  Kairowan;  E>"iD3,  No.  158,  anonymous:  a 
whole  quarter  inhabited  by  Jews).  Yet  some  responsa  tell 
us  of  Jews  living  promiscuously  with  non-Jews  and  knowing 
the  affairs  of  each  other  (see  »"i»3  ,  No.  95).  A  responsum 
mentions  that  all  the  inhabitants  of  a  town,  including  the 
Jews,  were  dressed  alike  as  soldiers  (»*1»3,  No.  69).  Another 


2<»  Pardes  24  c  :   jV3     VTW     W   pDDl    WH    D3N    '13    DHD   "OH 

r6  ps  D^iyn  JTIIDIN  T3  bast?  (cp.  B.  kamma  1173). 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM — MANN       137 

responsum  tells  us  of  a  case  of  a  Reader  (|tn)  who  was 
immoral,  and  the  non-Jews  were  blaming  the  Jews  for 
retaining  such  a  man  as  their  reader  in  the  synagogue 
(o'lOJ,  No.  17,  probably  by  R.  Joseph  Ibn  Abitur ;  see  also 
above,  p.  128).  We  find  further  cases  of  Jews  who  in  trying 
to  exact  monetary  claims  from  co-religionists  by  violence 
would  hire  non-Jews  and  instruct  them  to  waylay  their 
victims  and  extort  whatever  they  demanded  (Dwi»3,  No.  22, 
by  Saadya  ;  n"3 ,  No.  39,  to  Tlemsen,  see  Einleit.,  39,  note).202 
All  these  disconnected  details  scattered  here  and  there 
in  the  responsa  give  us  some  glimpse  of  the  mutual 
relations  between  Jew  and  non-Jew  in  these  times. 

(c]  A  point  of  much  interest  is  the  attitude  of  the  Jews 
of  the  Gaonic  period  towards  the  non-Jewish  courts.  It  is 
only  natural  that  a  non-Jew  when  having  a  claim  against 
a  Jew  would  summon  him  before  the  non-Jewish  court. 
A  gentile  generally  distrusted  the  Bet-Din  (see  n"3, 
No.  324,  by  R.  Hai  to  Kabes ;  $>"a,  No.  40,  by  R.  Hai; 
E"iE3,  No.  153;  No.  204  by  Hanok  b.  Moses).  Likewise 
a  Jew  had  to  summon  a  non-Jew  before  the  secular  courts. 
The  Bet-Din  had  certainly  no  power  of  coercion  over 
a  non-Jew  (see,  e.g.  »"iD3,  No.  102  by  Sar  Shalom  of  Sura, 
849-53  C-E'J  Nos.  201  and  204).  But  as  regards  disputes 
that  arose  between  Jew  and  Jew,  the  Geonim  as  well  as  the 
communal  leaders  strongly  disliked  any  attempt  to  bring 
these  disputes  for  settlement  before  the  non-Jewish  courts 
instead  of  the  Jewish  ecclesiastical  court,  the  so-called 
Bet-Din.  There  were  many  affairs  that  could  not  be 
divulged  before  courts  frequently  hostile.  The  screw  of 

202    Miiller,   Einleit.,  53,  note,  quotes  also  a  responsum  from  a  Parma 
manuscript:     W3nm    VUH    {jKI^    VMxh    Tj6    pn    013    JDW 

nayoa  orrby. 


138  THE   JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

taxation  and  impositions  would  have  been  made  tighter, 
if  the  whole  extent  of  business  carried  on  by  Jews  would 
have  become  known  through  such  monetary  lawsuits 
brought  before  the  courts.  Further,  for  fear  of  non-Jewish 
competition,  the  Jew  found  it  inadvisable  to  reveal  the 
particulars  of  his  trade.  We  find  the  Christian  ecclesiastical 
authorities  in  Babylon  of  the  same  period  exhibiting  the 
same  dislike  of  seeing  Christians  bring  their  lawsuits  before 
Muslim  courts.  In  the  Judicial  Decisions  of  the  Catho- 
licos  Mar  Timotheos  (about  805)  as  well  as  those  of  the 
Catholicos  Jesubarum  (820-24)  Christians  are  enjoined  to 
bring  their  disputes  exclusively  before  Christian  courts.203 
The  Geonim  in  opposing  Jewish  lawsuits  being  brought 
before  the  non-Jewish  courts  followed  the  Talmudic  pre- 
cepts. Already  R.  Tarfon  (end  of  first  century,  C.  E.)  was 
against  attending  non-Jewish  courts  (see  Gittin  88  b, 
v.  I.  R.  Meir)  niNnuK  NVin  nnNB>  0*3 
crb  pppni>  »nsn  nnx  •>«  foic*  »rn 
In  a  responsum  (quoted  by  Miiller,  Einleit.t  54,  note  4,  end, 
from  a  Parma  MS.)  the  Gaon  declares  that  if  a  Jew  hands 
over  a  co-religionist  to  a  non-Jewish  court,  even  in  monetary 
affairs,  he  is  regarded  as  an  informer  ("HDD).204 

On  the  whole  Jews  acted  according  to  the  injunctions 
of  their  spiritual  leaders  and  tried  to  settle  all  their  disputes 
before  the  Jewish  courts.  Thus  in  the  case  of  the  stolen 
goods  (above,  pp.  131-32)  we  find  the  claimant  arguing  to 

203  See    Sa<  hau,   Syrist/te  Rechtsbiicher,   vol.    II,   Berlin,    1908,    p.   56, 

11.     13-14:       ^+9    JJCUX     tt«J3      ^20     JLJL..J9     0«J»     oX      ^oiL)/      )jO»^&-V>0 

^X>?L&s^»o   *A!*?  ;  so  Mar  Timotheos;  cp.  further,  §§  12-13  (PP«  66-8), 
and  Jesubarnum,  §115  (pp.  168-9).     See  also  Aptowitzer,  /.  c.,  46  ff. 

«C4  ^Dy  tjy  DK  .-noj  niDD  Nip:  nsa  pn^  n»an  ns  IDIDB'  »D 
tya  vb  nitrs3  ^poy  by  TIDE  xipj  poo.    See  also  n*j,  NO.  491,  by 

Alfasi. 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN       139 

the  defendant  that  because  he  must  not  summon  him  before 
a  non-Jewish  court  he  is  worse  off  than  if  non-Jews  had 
bought  the  stolen  goods.205  Yet  the  responsa  mention 
several  cases  of  Jews  seeking  redress  against  their  co- 
religionists at  non-Jewish  courts.  A  Genizah  Fragment 
of  the  year  1016  (published  by  Poznariski,  REJ.,  XLVIII, 
171)  tells  us  of  a  Jew,  'Amrun  b.  Elijah  of  Sicily,  who  had 
Ephraim  b.  Shemaryah  arrested  by  the  Muslim  court- 
officials  in  Fustat  because  the  latter  did  not  want  to  appear 
before  a  Muslim  court  to  answer  on  the  former's  monetary 
claims.  The  arrested  Jew  justifies  himself  before  the 
Muslim  Judge  that  as  Jews  they  had  a  court  of  their  own 
for  settling  their  disputes.206  In  a  responsum  R.  Moses 
b.  Hanok  (¥"E>,  30  a,  No.  9)  decides  in  the  case  of  a  Jew 
who  had  his  co-religionist  arrested  that  he  should  pay  all 
expenses  which  his  co-religionist  incurred  through  his  im- 
prisonment (see  also  E"1C3,  No.  210).  Since  Jews  frequently 
brought  their  lawsuits  before  non-Jewish  courts,  repeated 
injunctions  had  to  be  made  by  the  spiritual  leaders  of 
Jewry  against  this  practice.  In  a  Cambridge  Genizah 
Fragment  (published  by  Dr.  Marmorstein,  Monatsschrift, 
1906,  599)  we  read  of  an  institution  in  a  community  that 
any  Jew  that  brings  his  lawsuit  before  a  non-Jewish  court 

208  fniN  ix  pa33n  ;rns*  wb  now  naatr  an»iN  DMJH  nn  .  .  . 
wnn  N^I  ,01110  N'DQP-IB  nniN  nupb  ptaobn  IN  maxn  HN 
jno  v*\  .rcnarui  jmna  -now  ^ae  jnk"  raw  \b  -nnna 
ynr  IN  /anu  nms  iTan  D^ya  INIT  K^  nnup^  w»sn  s%i? 

30D  nnw  pnpih  oaicn  IN  ^on  *J£^  pia  unra  pyawn  |ni? 
y  nn«  nNSO3i  .mnan  *3ab  0*333.1  jnisa  nwi  133100  nx 


TP2  Ninc'3  vc'ay  jnis  yam  wn  p<a  HM     N^  o^wn  jo  mr 


208  (ii.  17-18)  wpoya  iNi^i  njnn't?  ly  D%  .      .  e-"i  wn3N  DHI.T. 


140  THE   JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

should  pay  a  fine.207  In  an  undated  fragment  from  Fustat 
(in  the  possession  of  Mr.  E.  N.  Adler,  M.A.,  London)  we 
find  the  Nagid  enjoining  that  no  Jew  should  go  to  a 
non-Jewish  court  before  bringing  his  case  before  the  Jewish 
court  of  Cairo.208 

The  question  often  arose  whether  deeds  of  property  or 
transaction  drawn  up  in  non-Jewish  courts  possessed  legal 
value  in  Jewish  courts.  The  Geonim  were  frequently  asked 
to  legalize  such  documents  (see  n"j,  No.  Ha  ;  »"1OJ,  Nos.  94 
and  199).  Some  responsa  by  Spanish  scholars  as  well  as 
by  Hai,  throw  interesting  light  on  the  way  the  Muslim 
courts  administered  justice  in  Spain  and  Babylon  respec- 
tively. In  the  former  country  the  Muslim  courts  seem  to 
have  been  held  in  great  disrepute  by  the  Jews  at  the  end 
of  the  tenth  and  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  centuries. 
R.  Moses  b.  Hanok  of  Cordova,  in  dealing  with  the  case 
of  a  Jew  who  was  found  guilty  by  the  Arab  authorities 
on  the  charge  of  murder  and  had  his  property  confiscated, 
writes  that  '  their  justice  is  no  justice  even  when  Muslims 
only  are  concerned,  how  much  less  when  Jews  are  con- 
cerned. They  also  rely  on  witnesses  that  are  false  J.209  The 
Rabbi  criticizes  the  too  ready  acceptance  of  witnesses  by 
these  courts  without  first  ascertaining  their  veracity.  The 

207  paoai  mra  p^pa  inpta  njpnn  hv  rfen  nnco  w  bjn? 
ta  nisa-iya  (?)-inx  ta"iB»  •f'a  bjn  ^y  niDyt?  ••»  hv  bnpn 


208  bap  obiyn  nioisb  r»ai  'nyn  jow  D^iyn  matt6  ana'  N^I 
.  .  .  mruxp^x  *3  pmnn»^>  pn  jra^>  rmrn   See  also  o'j,  NO.  166: 
.  .  .  D^ijn  pna  wn  ^ya  oy  pnh  -jW  papa  i^by  bapon. 

209  0"1Da>  NO.  179:  IN^  DNI  pi  QTOH  DS  'ibn  iain  pxtr  la^sn  13 

c^ai  iEvyi>  p  '"aw  ^tjpi  »n  x!n  pn  D.T:H  ps  \snvj' 
nan  nrvs  n^'N  np^  ny  cha  Dm  nnny  by 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM — MANN       141 

same  disparaging  opinion  about  the  Arab  courts  was 
prevalent  among  the  Jews  of  Kairowan  and  North  Africa 
(n"3,  Nos.  237,  278,  and  324).  A  still  more  scathing 
criticism  we  find  in  another  responsum  by  a  Spanish  scholar 
of  that  time  (D^ioa,  No.  199,  see  Mtiller,  note  i).  The 
Rabbi  maintains  that,  firstly,  the  Arabic  documents  of  the 
courts  are  unreliable  because  by  adding  or  omitting  one 
dot  over  or  beneath  a  letter  in  the  Arabic  script  the  whole 
meaning  of  a  sentence  can  be  changed.  Secondly,  the 
courts  accept  witnesses  without  knowing  them,  and  rely 
on  identifications  the  witnesses  give  about  themselves.210 
Muller  (note  6  to  this  responsum)  is  surprised  at  this  pro- 
cedure as  being  against  the  Muhammedan  law,  but  we  shall 
see  later  on  that  R.  Hai  in  Pumbedita  knew  that  in  some 
parts  of  the  Muslim  empjre  such  a  scandalous  administra- 
tion of  justice  was  practised  (see  also  Muller,  Die  Rcsponsen 
dcr  spaniscJien  Lehrer  des  io'e"  JahrJwndertsy  p.  6  in  the 
seventh  report  of  the  Berlin  Lehranstalt,  1889). 

Entirely  different  was  the  state  of  affairs  in  Babylon. 
There  a  whole  system  of  jurisdiction  was  devised  and 
brought  to  a  high  level  of  efficiency  by  the  legal  school 
which  had  as  its  founder  the  famous  lawyer  Abu  Hanlfa 
(d.  766  c.  E.,  see  Kremer,  ibid.,  I,  491-7  and  504).  This 
high  standard  seems  to  have  been  maintained  for  several 
centuries.  The  Gaon  Hai  testifies  that  in  his  time  the 
courts  of  Bagdad  and  of  other  large  cities  excelled  them- 
selves in  their  care  exhibited  in  administering  justice. 
Great  care  was  shown  in  accepting  witnesses,  and  therefore 

210  riN  D'D^nD  nns«  nr.p:a  jn  spnrr6  nfc'SN  pana:?  .  .  , 
D'*va»  p«e>  DIN  D^Eyee'  onnya  ppnpio  PNG?  Tiyi  .  .  .  payn 
t&«  tnn  waw  a"yNi  nai  by  pcmro  »j^a  12 
, . .  jtmsb  itpaN  •"NSJ'  anan  nx^1  jn^anaa  •^"•i  -ins*. 


142  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

deeds  of  property  drawn  up  at  these  courts  were  accepted 
as  legal  by  the  court  of  the  Gaon.  Yet  R.  Hai  knew  that 
there  were  '  villages  and  distant  places ',  where  the  courts 
did  not  come  up  to  that  standard  of  perfection,  and  ac- 
cordingly documents  from  such  courts  found  no  legal 
recognition  in  the  opinion  of  the  Jewish  courts.211  We  thus 
see  the  Jewish  scholars  estimating  the  Muslim  courts  not 
from  the  point  of  view  of  fanatics,  but  of  lawyers  primarily 
concerned  about  fair  and  upright  administration  of  justice. 
That  the  Jewish  authorities  themselves  solicited  the  co- 
operation of  the  secular  authorities,  the  so-called  "INn  'a, 
is  apparent  from  several  responsa.  In  monetary  lawsuits, 
whenever  the  Bet-Din  or  the  communal  leaders  found 
that  their  powers  of  coercion  were  inadequate,  they  used 
to  secure  the  help  of  the  secular  arm.  Correspondents 
from  Kairowan  (rfa,  No.  233  in  the  collection  of  responsa 
to  Kairowan,  Nos.  230-64)  inquire  of  the  Gaon  with 
reference  to  the  Jew  A,  who  was  sentenced  by  the  Bet- 
Din  to  pay  to  B  a  sum  of  money,  but  does  not  obey  the 
ruling  of  the  Bet-Din.  Those  witnesses  that  were  accepted 

211  rT3,  No.  278  (in  all  probability  by  Hai  since  n"3,  No.  239,  a  similar 
responsum,  is  by  him) :   naVl3  VP3y  UW?  HNTH  nri»n  >3  WtH  pan 

D'npa  ony  N^S  D'i3  *?v  nixa-iya  pbapo  px  iNiaa 

NIP  nan  xS  npt?  nan  vht  *?n  \nrby  rby  t6» 
ix  nao  -IBP  by  vryn  DK  i^x  paa  p^ryD^u  pnipji  oma 
pn  ^DJ  I:N  n^  oswn  ^a*pi  jn^  nwanya  nnyn  nx  m"Di 
.DV  baa  n-tryo  vt^ay  waruo  jai  ,ubv«  xin  n^a^  IDB' 
;n  na  nnyb  pa»on  n^an  -nw  ns  |na  B^  i'aaaB'  nibvun  nnnxn 
tri  .  .  .  nptr  nano  PB>  bai  NI^  nana  nnrnb  panoi  jma 
}na  njnT  niaara)  niaipt^  N!JN  na  p<«B'  D»pmoi  nnsai 
.  .  .  p<nnD»  pT^ao  ias  p«  ib«  paa  frrnvnyo  panai  jn 

Cp.  also  n"a,  No.  324,  probably  written  in  1016  by  Hai  to  Kabes,  see 
Harkavy,  ibid.,  p.  156,  note  8  ;  n*3,  No.  233  ;  JftT,  84  b,  No.  4  ;  1*3,  No.  51. 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN       143 

by  the  Jewish  court  will  not  be  accepted  by  the  Arabic 
judges,  and  the  question  arises  whether  influential  people 
of  the  Jewish  community  may  go  to  the  Muslim  court  and 
give  evidence  on  the  strength  of  the  sentence  of  the  Bet- 
Din,  in  order  that  justice  should  be  carried  out  by  the  help 
of  the  secular  authorities.  The  Gaon  allows  this  procedure, 
especially  if  there  are  indications  that  the  defendant  B  is 
going  to  escape.  A  similar  responsum  we  have  in  X*t?, 
84  b,  No.  4  (assigned  by  the  'Ittur  to  Sherira).  In  the 
place  of  the  correspondents  there  was  no  fixed  Bet-Din, 
but  the  communal  leaders  used  to  settle  disputes  arising 
between  Jews.  If  their  ruling  is  not  obeyed,  the  Gaon 
decides,  the  help  of  the  secular  authorities  may  be  pro- 
cured.212 In  a  Genizah  Fragment  (published  by  Schechter 
in  Berliner's  Festschrift  ,  Hebrew  Part,  na)  we  find  the 
Dayan  Elijah  complaining  that  'from  the  majority  of 
our  congregation  it  is  difficult  to  recover  anything  un- 
justly appropriated,  unless  through  the  power  of  the 
ruler'.213  This  letter  was  hardly  sent  from  Egypt,  as 
Schechter  maintains;  11.  18-19  show  that  the  writer  only 
passed  through  Egypt  (cp.  also  Poznaiiski,  R&J.,  XLVII, 
139,  and  Babyl.  Geon.,  99,  note  i).  Perhaps  this  Dayan 
held  his  office  in  Damascus  where  there  existed  a  Karaite 
community.  Probably  Sahl  b.  Masliah  had  this  practice 
of  the  Rabbanite  authorities  in  mind  when  he  accuses  them 

212  bw  D'ua  ainn  paia  b«nB"  naiD^  tpenn  jbran  jw  mpeai 

"IQNfl  .  Cp.  further  '  Gaonic  Decrees  and  Documents  '  (published  by 
Aptowitzer,  JQR.,  N.  S.,  vol.  IV,  p.  27)  ;  No.  V  (KfiaTlK)  :  12  ^31  ... 

niois*  <»P  mnDtt  bwb  snicn  n^  rvx  Kn9Tn6  rrb  *rm  bvrvtp 

nhyn.     See  also  R.  Yeruham,  D'1B*D,  I,  12  (beginning)   inWIDTnt?   '» 

pnpn  p  D'IJ  i>p  nisanya  wunl>  *ny  ^sn^  vn  vsb  K£  moot 


1  psu 

113  ini^D  nin  nsn  s"3  DT  nnno  rbn  vtwbv 


144  THE   JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

of  enlisting  the  help  of  the  secular  power  (n'Nanoi 
ana:n  *B»hjai  mnai  TTM  txvfyy  anaanoi,  in  Pinsker, 
nmmp,  DTISDJ,  31,  bottom).214  From  some  community  the 
complaint  came  to  R.  Hai  that  there  were  refractory  people 
who  did  not  listen  to  the  Bet-Din  and  committed  evil 
deeds,  while  '  the  government  was  a  grievous  one  '  and 
afforded  no  assistance  to  the  communal  leaders.215  The 
whole  problem  of  the  power  of  the  Jewish  courts  and  the 
communal  leaders  will  be  discussed  fully  in  the  chapter  next 
but  one. 

(d)  We  shall  now  discuss  the  material  which  the  re- 
sponsa  furnish  concerning  Jewish  masters  and  their  slaves. 
It  is  generally  assumed  that  the  Jews  of  the  Gaonic  period 
were  very  active  in  slave-trade  (see  Heyd,  Geschichte  d. 
Levante-handels  im  Mittelalter,  I,  139,  and  Dr.  Abrahams, 
Jewish  Life  in  the  Middle  Ages,  96  ff.).  It  is  noteworthy 
that  of  the  considerable  number  of  responsa  that  deal  with 
slaves  in  the  service  of  Jews,  only  a  few  refer  to  slave-trade 
as  a  trade  carried  on  by  Jews.  R.  Nahshon  of  Sura  (874-82) 
was  asked  by  some  community  about  slave-trade.  'In 
our  place  people  are  used  to  buy  slaves  cheaply,  and  there 
is  no  better  trade  than  this.  May  we  sell  them  at  once 
without  initiating  them  into  Jewish  rites,  because  only  one 
out  of  a  hundred  abide  in  his  newly  accepted  religion, 
and  we  get  great  profit  from  this  trade?'216  The  Gaon 

214  Yet  Benjamin  Nahavendi  also  advocates  this  practice  :  N12'   N?   DN1 

ma^on  Tfnsrtf>  mix  anoio  aw  N^  HB>  p  ^>ap>  N^I  nb«  insi? 
HP  p  v^y  Toyr6  y^y  DH^DI  (fo^a  nNt?o,  ed.  Firkovitz,  2a 

bottom). 

216  D"iD3,  NO.  42:  paypi  wn  »ai»  pn«jf  K^n  ^K  pj  n*N  .  .  . 
^a*  xh  NNT  nppi  niy  nia^oi  Nin  n^p  pn  pe»a  pnaiy 


"^,  26  b,  No.  27  :  p 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN       145 

permitted  this  trade.  Had  the  Talmudic  law  (Yebamot 
48  b)  been  carried  out  to  its  full  extent,  slave-trade 
could  not  have  been  carried  on  by  Jews.  This  Talmudic 
law  requires  that  every  Jew  should  have  his  male  slaves 
circumcised  and  his  female  slaves  initiated  into  the  rites 
of  Judaism.  With  their  acceptance  of  Judaism  such  slaves 
must  not  be  sold  any  more  to  non-Jews.  Some  Geonim 
seem  to  have  been  very  strict  about  these  laws.  Thus 
R.  'Amram  (v"cr,  25  b,  No.  18)  does  not  allow  a  slave  to  be 
retained  even  for  a  month  unless  this  slave  consents  to 
become  a  Jew.  Only  circumcision  is  allowed  to  be  post- 
poned for  a  year  (based  on  Yebam.  48  b).  According  to 
the  Talmud  (Gittin  44  a)  a  Jew  who  sold  his  slaves  that 
had  accepted  Judaism  to  non-Jews  was  to  be  fined  by  the 
Bet-Din  ten  times  the  value  of  the  slaves.  This  fine 
which  was  spent  on  charity  we  find  imposed  by  the  Geonim 
(YV,  26  a,  No.  19)  by  R.  Kohen-Sedek  (either  of  Sura  845 
or  of  Pumbedita  926)  ;  27  b,  No.  37,  by  R.  Natronai  ;  see 
¥"K>,  23  a,  No.  3,  end).  The  Catholici  in  'Irak  likewise 
excommunicated  Christian  masters  that  sold  their  Christian 
slaves  to  members  of  another  religion  (Jesubarnum,  §  65, 
and  Timotheos,  §  77,  in  Sachau,  op.  cit.}.  But  it  seems 
that  the  Geonim  had  difficulties  in  enforcing  all  these  laws 
amongst  the  people.  Slave-trade  was  lucrative  in  those 
times,  and  the  temptation  was  great.  Several  Jewish 
masters  disliked  to  circumcise  their  slaves,  because  they 
would  not  be  able  to  sell  them  any  more  to  non-Jews. 
R.  Hai  in  a  responsum  wonders  that  there  should  be  a  Jew 


mino   cr 

m"tn   nin   l       W\   riNCD  iriS   tix.     Other  references  to  slave-trade  as 
carried  on  by  Jews  are  perhaps  to  be  found  in  Jf"K',  81  b,  No.  17  ;  Geon.,  II, 
15°  (P"n)  ;   H"3,  No.  435.     See  also  X*K>,  27  b,  No.  38,  by  R.  Natronai. 
VOL.  X.  L 


146  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

whose  slave  desires  to  become  a  Jew,  but  whose  master 
prevents  him  (see  Y"e>,  26  a,  Nos.  20  and  21  (Einleit.,  15, 
note)  and  Geon.y  II,  197).  Thus,  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
of  the  Geonim,  slave-trade  apparently  flourished  among 
Jews.  The  Arabic  geographer  Ibn  Kordadbeh,  in  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century,  in  his  famous  report  (published 
first  by  Sprenger,  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society  of  Bengal, 
vol.  14,  Part  2,  1844,  519  fif.,  discussed  in  the  next  chapter) 
tells  of  Jewish  business  men  that  travelled  from  the  country 
of  the  Franks  so  far  as  to  China,  and  who  on  their  way  back 
used  to  bring  slaves,  both  male  and  female,  and  eunuchs  to 
the  Occident.  It  should  be  pointed  out  that  Jews  them- 
selves were  prohibited  by  a  Talmudic  law  to  castrate  their 
slaves,  and  this  could  be  done  only  by  non-Jews,  as  we 
learn  from  a  Gaonic  responsum.217 

In  Jewish  households  slaves  were  as  frequent  as  in 
any  non-Jewish  household.  In  Arabic-speaking  countries 
it  appears  that  Jews  were  allowed  to  keep  only  Christian 
slaves  but  not  Muhammedan.  An  interesting  question 
from  Tlemsen  sent  to  Hai  shows  us  how  Jews  obtained 
slaves  for  their  households.  R.  Hai's  correspondents  write 
that  there  are  places  where  Jews  find  only  Christian  female 
slaves  for  sale.  These  a  Jew  is  allowed  to  acquire  legally  : 
Muhammedan  slaves  he  can  obtain  only  secretly  and  at 
great  danger.  Now  some  of  these  Christian  slave-girls 
accept  Judaism  at  once,  others  ask  for  some  time  for 
consideration,  but  the  majority  refuse  to  accept  Judaism. 
The  correspondents  describe  how  a  Jewish  household 
without  a  female  slave  is  in  great  trouble,  since  the  wife 


""  n  ,  No.  •;«  :    nipK   'JN1    DD1D    DH3J7   "      C*r   *       TDK'." 

...  Kin  -1103  -vnvn  nta  -pa  pw  nniD  720.   Cp.  JTB>,  233,  NO.  3: 
ono  nay 


RESPONSA    OF   THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN       147 

or  the  daughters  of  the  Jew  would  have  to  fetch  water 
from  the  wells,  wash  the  linen  by  the  side  of  the  river,  and 
go  to  the  baker's.  They  will  thus  come  into  contact  with 
non-Jewish  and  profligate  slaves  and  be  exposed  to  dangers 
and  disgrace.  The  Gaon  permits  these  Jews  to  retain 
their  female  slaves,  in  spite  of  their  not  accepting  the  rites 
of  Judaism.  He  only  enjoined  the  Jewish  masters  not  to 
employ  their  slaves  on  the  Sabbath.218  This  interesting 
responsum,  besides  giving  us  a  glimpse  of  the  social  condi- 
tions of  those  times,  shows  in  the  first  instance  that  Jews 
were  not  allowed  to  have  Muhammedan  slaves.  This  is 
further  corroborated  by  j"n,  Nos.  12  and  13  (probably  by 
R.  Paltoi  of  Pumbedita,  842-58)  especially  according  to 
Halberstamm's  MS.  (see  Einleit.,  27,  note  3).  A  slave 
told  his  master  '  Either  liberate  my  son  or  I  shall  become 
a  convert  ',  i.  e.  he  would  become  a  Muslim  and  thus 
eo  ipso  liberate  himself  ("33  nx  mm?  \rh  "iDtw  nay  btttttl 
nnnK>N  vb  w)  .  We  learn  further  from  the  above  question 
from  Tlemsen  to  R.  Mai  that  even  in  Muhammedan 
countries  Christian  slaves  could  not  be  forced  to  become 
Jews.  This  is  corroborated  by  several  responsa.  Especially 


*5^  23  b>  No  6=  n//:>  No<  43X. 

or6  nniD  o»um  nvwo  ucipcs  jni  nvrco  S^N  nupb  ninBB> 
wp$>  ?niK  prwo  p«  jno  pn  bns  jniapb  oninM  nx 
jno  an  7nn^^  nn^anot?  jno  B>»I  ,n»D3i 

-mr6  rwi  WKB'  ^1  /p? 
v:n  ttiox*  K^B>  inra  nn^ 
pvnsi  Q»U  ninsitr  oy  "JTID^  DN^I  nvycn  p 

mN3.  ninXtS  in  the  bad  Salonica  print  of  the  X'^,  where 
1J  are  put  so  closely  as  to  appear  as  a  D,  really  stands  for  mv"W3. 
(Examine  the  word  miJB  in  X"^,  20  b.,  No.  13).  In  X"B>  ab,  No.  17  it  is 
clearly  printed  nVW.  See  further  n"3,  p.  224,  note  10.  The  abbreviated 
responsum  in  n"3,  No.  n,  has  also  niHJfJ  HIDSt^. 

L  a 


148  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

male  slaves  could  not  be  forced  to  become  circumcised 
even  after  the  lapse  of  twelve  months  given  for  considera- 
tion (cp.  above,  p.  145,  and  v"£',  23  a,  No.  i).  But  as  regards 
female  slaves  who  required  only  the  ritual  bath  for  their 
initiation  into  the  Jewish  rites  we  find  cases  of  forcible 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  masters.  Sherira  (¥*B>, 
25  b,  No.  16,  n^aom  D^ni?  nnsy  by  rtap  xbw  ivm)  nnse> 
nrro  !>jn)  decides  rightly  that  such  an  enforced  ritual  bath 
has  no  effect,  and  the  slave  remains  a  Christian  anyhow. 
But  Sar  Shalom  (of  Sura,  849-53)  ls  °f  a  different  opinion 
(x*e>,  27  a,  No.  32=n"&?,  No.  255  =  a"n,  No.  16).  It  should 
be  kept  in  mind  that  for  a  Jewish  household,  a  slave  that 
did  not  accept  the  Jewish  rites  was  of  no  use.  The  slave 
could  neither  cook,  nor  prepare  the  food,  nor  touch  the 
Jew's  wine,  nor  perform  other  domestic  duties  (see  x"li>, 
23  a,  No.  3  ;  nV,  No.  254  =  s"n,  No.  15).  In  some  places 
Jewish  masters  were  afraid  that  slaves,  who  did  not  accept 
Judaism,  would  be  used  by  their  non-Jewish  enemies  as 
a  tool  for  denunciation  and  slander.219 

On  the  whole  we  may  assume  that  the  slaves  were 
treated  humanely  in  Jewish  households.  The  very  fact 
that  they  became  half-proselytes  helped  to  raise  their  status 
and  to  elicit  sympathy  from  their  employers.  Thus  they 
were  regarded  almost  as  members  of  the  family.  In  x"c', 
273,  No.  3  (by  R.  Semah  =  Geon.,  II,  183,  1.  9)  there  is 
mentioned  the  case  of  a  slave,  who  pretended  to  have 
adopted  Judaism,  in  order  not  to  be  sold  to  non-Jews. 
We  find  further  cases  of  masters  having  their  slaves  or  the 


219  m,  No.  431  (end),  and  No.  ir:   DHIiyn   |D  ptn'TlD  Jilt? 

DDII  DPBJ  wpivb  bxw  -no  -by*  vbv  n«ana 


J  fJTlN  pD"pD  PN-."  "Wl  niOr6»1.    This  again  shows  us  the  attitude 
of  the  populace  in  Arabic  countries  towards  the  Jews. 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM  —  MANN       149 

children  of  their  slaves,  instructed  in  the  Bible  (¥":?,  26  b, 
No.  29,  by  Sherira  ;  27  b,  No.  36,  by  R.  Nahshon  (see 
Einleit.,  14,  note)  ;  Geon.,  II,  83-4).  But  it  seems  that  the 
Geonim  disliked  this  practice.  Sometimes  slaves  were 
entrusted  with  the  entire  management  of  their  masters' 
affairs  (see  ¥"E>,  26  b,  No.  29  ;  73  b,  No.  10,  by  R.  Natronai 
(Einleit,,  14,  note)  =1*3,  No.  79  ;  p"3,  No.  50,  which  Muller, 
Einleit.,  25,  assigns  to  R.  Meshullam  or  R.  Gershon,  hence, 
a  case  of  slaves  in  Christian  countries).  The  Roman  custom 
of  manumitting  a  favourite  slave  before  or  immediately 
after  the  death  of  his  master,  which  we  find  in  vogue 
among  the  Jews  in  the  Talmudic  times,  was  also  continued 
in  the  period  of  the  Geonim.  From  several  responsa  we 
learn  that  the  practice  was  for  a  man  to  liberate  before 
his  death  his  favourite  slave.  Likewise  the  death  of  her 
mistress  would  result  in  a  female  slave  regaining  her  liberty 
(see  X*B>,  27  a,  No.  31  ;  Geon.,  II,  83).  Female  slaves  were 
frequently  included  in  the  dowries  given  to  daughters  on 
their  marriage  (¥"e>,  45  b,  No.  7,  by  Samuel  b.  Hofni  ;  54  b, 
No.  8,  probably  by  Sherira;  »*i»3,  No.  220).  Generally 
we  find  the  Bet-Din  looking  after  the  interests  of  the 
slaves  and  affording  them  protection.  Following  the 
Talmudic  maxims,  the  Geonim  would  force,  for  example, 
the  heirs  of  a  man,  that  declared  his  slaves  to  be  free 
after  his  death,  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  testator 
(see  *"&?,  26  b,  No.  25;  253,  No.  14;  27  b,  No.  36,  end). 
Once  R.  Sadok  (of  Sura,  823-5)  even  forced  the  son  of  the 
Exilarch  to  comply  with  the  Talmudic  rule  in  such  a  case, 
and  grant  freedom  to  the  slaves  of  his  testator,  a  late 
member  of  the  Exilarch's  family.220  The  Christian  eccle- 


2«>  Geon.,    II,  83  :    -Q    frU    lEBn    rttTBO   '33    }D    TnN3  TOO  JW  "p 

Tins:?  ^ibsi  nay  ^ba  "^NI  mxi  nnaE>i  nay  ib  vm  -ix"-ine> 


150  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 

siastical  authorities  in  Babylon  likewise  forced  the  heirs, 
by  excommunicating  them  from  the  Church,  to  fulfil  the 
wishes  of  their  testator  and  grant  freedom  to  his  slaves 
that  had  been  declared  free  (so  Henaniso,  V  ;  Jesubarnum, 
§  66  in  Sachau,  op.  cit.}.  Another  case  R.  Nahshon  men- 
tions in  a  responsum  in  sV,  27  b,  No.  33  :  '  A  slave  swore 
not  to  serve  his  master.'  Seeing  the  great  binding  force 
of  the  oath  with  Jews,  the  slave  wanted  to  gain  his  liberty 
in  this  manner.  But  the  Gaon  decided  to  take  no  heed 
of  the  slave's  oath.  On  the  other  hand  we  find  the  Bet- 
Din  imposing  flagellation  on  a  slave  because  he  assaulted 
certain  people  (¥*&?,  29  b,  No.  4,  probably  by  Sar  Shalom, 
see  Einleit.,  14,  note).  If  a  slave  of  a  Jew  did  not  observe 
the  rites  of  Judaism  into  which  he  was  initiated,  his  master 
was  allowed  to  sell  him  to  non-Jews.  We  have  the  evidence 
of  the  responsa  that  the  greatest  majority  of  the  slaves  in 
the  service  of  Jews  did  not  observe  the  Jewish  rites  (see 
vV,  23  a,  No.  3,  but  cf.  »*IIM,  No.  49;  n"j,  Nos.  in  and 
431,  by  Sherira  as  regards  the  Sabbath;  ¥"B>,  27  a,  No.  30, 
by  R.  Semah).  Likewise  if  a  Jewish  master  was  discovered 
committing  immorality  with  his  female  slave,  the  master 
was  severely  punished  and  the  slave  sold  to  non-Jews  (x"B>, 
2b,  No.  17,  cp.  253,  Nos.  13  and  15). 

All  the  responsa  discussed  in  this  paragraph,  when 
taken  together,  acquaint  us  with  the  position  of  the  slaves 
in  the  service  of  Jews.  However  great  an  evil  slavery  was 
in  those  times,  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  in  Jewish 


n»Dpi>  NriNi  ((£**>.  ^  A»!  ^Juj  }')  nya  p  nnx 
ma  n»y»e>  frm  cnv^  n^aai  .  .  .  pxa  pm  an  no  wry 

KJinvn  NO':  Jir6  nnSI  Nrv6a  pn  pnrt.  A  similar  case  we  have  in 
the  Decisions  of  the  Catholicos  Henaniso,  No.  VII  (Sachau,  ibid.,  p.  14). 
See  Aptowitzer,  ibid.,  12  ff. 


RESPONSA    OF    THE    BABYLONIAN    GEONIM — MANN       151 

service  the  slaves  enjoyed  perfect  rest  on  the  Sabbath  and 
the  Jewish  Festivals,  just  as  their  masters.  Further,  their 
having  adopted  Judaism  made  their  lot  more  tolerable. 
They  were  therefore  treated  with  more  consideration.  In 
P*J,  No.  1 1 8,  the  Rabbi,  probably  Kalonymos  of  Lucca, 
writes  that  the  well-known  prayer  for  the  dead,  the  Kaddish, 
should  also  be  recited  for  slaves  that  observed  the  Jewish 
rites  (pnp  Dn»is  ru«DNn  nx  Dnoposp  D"*nyn  by  i^aM).  In 
another  responsum  (xV,  23  b,  No.  5)  we  find  the  case  of 
a  slave  whom  his  Jewish  master  sold  to  a  non-Jew,  and 
who  on  gaining  his  freedom  from  his  second  master  desires 
to  remain  henceforth  a  Jew.  Finally,  the  Jewish  master 
was  personally  free  from  the  blame  of  the  cruelty  of 
castrating  his  slaves  (see  above,  p.  I46).221 

221  Yet  Dozy  (Geschichte  der  Mauren  in  Spanien,  II,  38)  writes,  'The 
Jews,  who  speculated  on  the  misery  of  the  nations,  bought  children  of  both 
sexes  and  brought  them  to  ports  where  Greek  and  Venetian  ships  called  to 
transport  them  to  the  Saracens.  Other  slaves,  destined  for  attendance  at 
the  harems,  came  from  France  where  there  existed  large  establishments 
for  eunuchs  managed  by  Jews  '.  As  Harkawy  (.TJDfv  HaiVH,  1877,  219,  4) 
rightly  remarks,  Jew-hatred  rather  than  the  actual  facts  is  the  reason 
for  the  above  statement  as  well  as  for  the  assertion  of  the  Arab  writer 
Muhammad  al-Mukaddasi  al-Bashari  that  the  slaves  from  the  Slav  countries 
are  brought  to  Baganah  (near  Almeria  in  southern  Spain,  see  above,  VII, 
486,  note  32)  whose  inhabitants  are  Jews  and  who  castrate  them  there. 

( To  be  continued.} 


152  THE    JEWISH    QUARTERLY    REVIEW 


CORRIGENDA   IN  VOL,  IX,  139  ff. 

P.  148,  note  105,  1.  i.     Far  Tos.  Ber.  316  read  31'. 

P.  151,  note  120,  1.  2.     For  310  Sel.  =  9g8  read(i)  310  Sel.  =  999  c.  E. 

Pp.  156,  1.  21,  and  167,  1.  27.     For  part  H  read  Hebrew  part. 

P.  160,  I.  9.     For  Elhananan  read  Elhanan. 

P.  165,  1.  14.     For  Juda  read  Joshua. 

P.  169,  note  163,  1.  3  from  the  bottom.     For  we  razrfwere. 


Vol.  IX,  p.  415,  note  8.     For  i  Sam.  4.  3  read  4.  13. 

P.  417,  1.  18.     For  Suhlan  read  Sahlan. 

P.  420, 1.  15.     For  become  in  MS.  read  are  styled. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


000  370  586 


•H 


I  V 


, 


•I 


i 


Universi 

Southi 

Libri 


